I know of at least two women who would of had their kids if they had health care. Both were working two jobs but part time so they had no health care. One gave her child up and one had an abortion. I don't have a crystal ball but i know that they would of been less likely to do what they did if they had access to health care (PS they made to much to get medicaid and not enough to privately pay)
Adoption - 20 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Maybe some. I had good insurance and still CHOSE to relinquish. some yes that would make a difference. Especially if someone will help pay the bills after the baby comes
2 :
We don't need nationalized health care. Or universal health care. Our health care system might not be the best right now but I can assure you that if Obama turns us into a nationalized health care system, it will turn to CRAP (just like Canada).
3 :
sorry, but it is up to the individual to provide health care. How is it you believe that taxpayers sould have to pay?
4 :
Socialized Health Care will raise our taxes from 30% to over 65%, can you afford that?
5 :
Wow, that is so sad that people don't have their children because our country's health care is messed up. I don't think it would make a big difference on whether or not women keep their kids, I've never hears of this before now.
6 :
i know women who didnt even know about medicaid and could not afford an hmo and they still had their kids and survived financially! Women in the US would be the same or worse about pregnancie if there was a universal health care system.
7 :
The UK has the National Health Service and plenty of women still get abortions. They're free on the NHS.
8 :
All I can say is that without universal health care I would have been a lot less likely to parent.
9 :
""We don't need nationalized health care. Or universal health care. Our health care system might not be the best right now but I can assure you that if Obama turns us into a nationalized health care system, it will turn to CRAP "" The above answer really doesn't belong here...so I will answer in likewise, just because. Turn to CRAP??? It's already turned to CRAP! I work a full-time job that offered benefits, including health insurance, that I paid a high premium for and a high deductible. Still the fact remained I had medical insurance. The week before Thanksgiving we were given the news that the company we work for will no longer be providing any more benefits (cutting costs)..not medical, life nor a 401K, to include no raises in the foreseeable future. Madame would you say the same if your medical insurance disappeared from your life?? Can you afford to pay as an 'individual'? Could you afford to pay out of pocket should you need surgery or was hit by a catastrophic illness? I for one would love to be in the same insurance 'pool' with our congresspeople!
10 :
I do not believe that a woman would give up her child solely on the grounds of health care coverage or not. That maybe a contributing factor, but there are facilities that bill on a sliding fee scale, public health, and on payment plans. So my answer would be NO.
11 :
Yes....it would definitely help them.....look at how many people that have insurance that still need to beg organizations/hospitals or have fundraisers just to get adequate health care for their sick kids. Retards that are against universal healthcare don't realize that they already are paying for the un/under insured one way or another. Higher premiums, thru taxes, or being denied coverage. Pull the money out of warfare and put it into the welfare of all citzens. The general public doesn't get that in order to qualify for public aid you have to be pretty much living below the poverty line. Depending on the state if you make a $1 over it you loose your crappy health care.
12 :
1% of my income tax goes to medicare. When it comes to a woman's health and having babies all her medical is covered by medicare in the hospital and doctors in the public system. So when it comes to adoption she doesn't need a PAP to pay for her costs. I feel that contributes to corruption if a PAP is expected to cover all of that. Why should they pay her bills it only opens the door for people who would abuse it.(A surrgate is different again, she volenteered to carry a baby for a couple.) Some people in the US may think thats harsh but i don't. PAP's should be paying only for legal costs and their home studies. There should be other means for a women to be supported throughtout a pregnancy. (Works in other countries that have much lower adoption rates.)
13 :
i think it would change a lot of women's minds, my husband is in the army and works full time outside of the army, and we still pay an insane amount for insurance and co-pays, i think the government should provide some kind of health care benefits i also think if they offered a plan where women or men of a certain criteria could become sterile for a fraction of the regular cost it would help a lot, it's very expensive,
14 :
what i think is that if ALL women had UNIVERSAL SUPPORT, adoption would hardly exist.
15 :
i'm glad to be in a country where our 'crap' healthcare means that me abd my family can get help when we need it without going broke. i don't mind paying a few cents more for my eggs or whatever in return for the peace of mind that comes with universal health care, the system is not perfect and there is a shortage of medical proffessionals but it's still better than not being able to afford medical care at all. besides most of the tax money they use comes from gas/booze and smokes
16 :
nope
17 :
No matter what happens to my kids, the hospital is just around the corner and I pay nothing to use the same services as people who make 10 times more than I do. We have one of the best kids hospitals in the world here, and once again, because of Canada's health care system, my son was able to get therapy, and my daughter was able to be evaluated for FREE. Everytime someone buys a beer, my kids get free health care lol.
18 :
Yes, just look at comparisons between Canada and United States.
19 :
ABSOLUTELY!!! Every time i've posted the Q it gets deleted buy the insurance salesmen who are scared of losing business: Here's why it will reduce relinquishment rate for those who wish to parent their children: 1.) Medical bill can't be used as leverage 2.) Parents are more likely to keep children with moderate medical conditions, where now some are forced to put their children in foster care to get certain treatment (particularly mental health) that may not be covered by basic insurance. 3.) Reduced out of pocket medical expenses will reflect in lower child support payment, also making it easier for non-custodial parents to support their children. 4.) Less pressure to return to work, out of fear of losing health care benefits. 5.) Women with substance abuse issues while pregnant can get treatment, and maybe she will be well enough to care for her baby, and hopefully the effects to the child will also be limited making parenting a more appealing option. 6.) Free birth control, less unplanned pregnancies, hopefully free vasectomies and tubal ligations too. 7.) Pregnant women will be less likely to turn to crisis centers for free pregnancy tests, and referred to adoption counselors, they can go to a non bias health professional. Additional benefits related to adoption: 1.) Children with special needs will be more adoptable if the APs knew there was support, should the child need intensive care. 2.) From what I understand, children are REQUIRED to have yearly checkups and pregnant women are REQUIRED to have regular visits and screening while pregnant. This will be a great intervention in many cases that lead to adoption/foster care. 3.) Adoption agencies can't charge what they do, claiming they pay birthing and postnatal care. CPR would probably be covered, as well as physicals. 4.) With a UHC medical records can be accessed better and screened for prior substance abuse or mental health issues. While I think UHC would be great for America as a whole, here are some things I would like to see happen also. 1.) Small copay for those who CAN afford it. I would have no problem paying $20 for a doctor’s visit (which is what I pay now) and $50 for an ER visit (with an out of pocket limit of 1% of one's income). This would detour people from abusing the system, like the people who call 911 everyday because they are bored. 2.) Still allow a private sector to health care, to promote innovation and for those who want certain kind of care and are willing to pay for it. if someone wants to pay top dollar to have a doctor on call and available when they want, then so be it. 3.) I would like to see more PSAs about preventative health care, keeping people from needing emergency health care.
20 :
I've never heard of such a scenario, even though I'm sure it happens more than we are aware of. It's a "catch 22" and I know how it is. I myself do not qualify for medicaid yet I don't make enough to get private insurance. I would like to think there are places that people can get low cost to free health care through charity. Some county's offer county health care, which is not nearly as nice as medicaid but I guess beggars can't be choosy? But it sounds possible, with universal health care there might be fewer.
Read more discussions :
- Health and fitness class/tips for children
- What exactly is "well child care"? When referring ...
- what Kind of Health problems do German Shepard hav...
- How do I go about getting health insurance
- Does anyone knows the health impact of human genet...
- Why did President Bush believe it was ok to double...
- health ins. for my child
- What are some books that deal with daily routines ...
